JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether registration of the FIR under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE alongwith ancillary Sections, after earlier proceedings instituted consciously for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been quashed by the High Court and the judgment having been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after certain cosmetic changes would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

2. The present case is one such case where the respondent No.2- complainant, who was also a Director & shareholder of the Company to which payment had been advanced, had chosen to institute proceedings against the other Directors of the Company-without impleading the Company, and after having been unsuccessful in the proceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. So much so, a specific finding was recorded by the High Court, while quashing the complaint as well as the summoning order that no amount was due by the Director. The cheque in question was issued in the year 2015, proceeding instituted under Section 138 & summoning order was passed on 11.06.2016 and order of quashing was passed on 25.09.2019. Order of quashing was passed on 25.07.2019. The SLP was dismissed on 25.11.2019. The FIR has thereafter been registered on 11.06.2022-nearly after a decade when the amount was purportedly invested and 07 years after the cheque was dishonoured. The limitation for recovery as per the limitation Act, 1963 also came to an end in 2018. Yet, the Police promptly registered the FIR without even a preliminary inquiry.

3. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') seeking quashing of case bearing FIR No. 100 dated 11.06.2022 under Section 406 , 419, 420, 477 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

4. Briefly summarized the facts of the instant case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be the partners in a partnership firm namely M/s Design Boxed Creatives having its due registration with the Registrar of Firms Surat. The aforesaid partnership firm is claimed to have commenced business operations from 08.12.2011 and its activities included web solution, web designing, web software etc. After sometime, the partners of the firm decided to expand business operations and established a Private Limited company under the name and style of Design Boxed Creative's (India) Private Limited which was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and incorporated on 17.01.2013. A total of three Directors were appointed, which included the 2 petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 -the complainant herein. Respondent No.2 is stated to have remained as a Director in the aforesaid company for the period commencing from 24.11.2013 to 08.12.2015.

5. The dispute in the present case owes its origin to the aforesaid relationship amongst the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2- complainant and in relation to the amount payable to the respondent No.2. The instant case has had a slightly chequered past and there has been an earlier round of litigation. The same is hereinafter referred to as the 1st round and the details in respect whereof are summarized hereinafter below: -

1st ROUND OF LITIGATION

6. The respondent No.2-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the year 2016 alleging therein that she had come in contact with the petitioners in the year 2012 when the petitioners gave an offer to the respondent No.2- complainant to join as a Project Director and Resident Editor at the office to be operationalized at